The statement about womens bones and saddle width is a generalization which is hard to justify. My wife Mrs. Road Fan is pretty slim and very comfortable on a Brooks B17, which happens to be a vintage Select model. I had bought it for myself and then she suddenly needed a saddle, and loved it's look. We put it on her bike and did the basic settings (height, tilt, fore/aft, any needed rotation bias), and now she guards it from me. If it was a steak she'd be defending it with a bared fork. So women do not always need a wide saddle. What the B17 offers her is to maintain its shape, I think due to the thicker Select leather, and to support her weight on her sit-bones and NOT on the other areas of her anatomy. For my riding, as well, this point is critical. The Brooks saddles seem to intend the rider's sitbones to be located fore/aft where the saddle is widest.

Her riding position uses drop bars, but they are positioned about at the same height as the saddle. So she is nowhere as far leaned as the archetypal tri-bike bars, with weight on the elbows and forearms. Her saddle is placed fore-aft so that her knees are a little behind the crank axis, and tilted so she does not tend to slide forward (nose too low) and her bones don't rest on the steel base in the back of a leather saddle (nose too high). With the degree of lean she has, the width of the B17 works well for her. If she went for a tri-bar (we don't compete so I'm pretty sure she won't), she would benefit from a narrower saddle. I'd put her on a B17 Narrow or a Brooks Professional, just as examples.

This is all controversial and worthy of debate, but it is how I have worked to set us up for comfortable and (I guess) efficient riding. I worked similarly with a neighbor lady who wanted to train and ride her first triathlon, and she won. But no reported discomfort.

I hope this helps!